Internet Porn Site Regulation

(09-10-2013 12:22 )mr mystery Wrote:  ^ Look for Babestation.co.uk they own the shebang web show according to what is posted in the terms and conditions section on Shebang .

Ah, thanks.

Never knew Babestation were the owners of Shebang. Always thought Amanda Rendall was the female boss.

But can't find Babestation or Cellcast on here either:
http://www.atvod.co.uk/regulated-service...d-services

^ I never knew either until i was looking through the Shebang web show small print last night to see if it mentioned anywhere about being regulated by ATVOD, in the small print it mentions that the owner is Babestation.co.uk, i assumed Shebang was regulated by ATVOD when it mentioned something about abiding by UK laws etc, but i'm not so sure now..
The BS, BSX and Sexstation webshows are owned by a Dutch company based in Amsterdam by the way (Game Networks BV) and are governed by the laws of the Netherlands, it says this in the terms and conditions of the websites , so i think that's why hardcore sex shows are broadcast free to air on SexStation .

^^ shebang is hosted in the UK, so I would say it is certainly under ATVOD jurisdiction.

As for whether it is owned by babestation, I'm not convinced. It wouldn't surprise me if what has actually happened is that they copy/pasted the terms and conditions from that site and simply forgot to change the site name at the appropriate place (it mentions babestation.co.uk, which is not in use anymore, they long since switched to the .tv domains, and just before that it uses shebang.com which is also not in use anymore)

^
Yes, this is word for word what is currently posted in the terms and conditions on the Shebang website :

"You must read and agree to these terms & conditions before you're subscription can be activated. Please read them carefully . For good and valuable consideration, the sufficiently that is acknowledged by you and the shebang.com (the "service") and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions set forth in this agreement (the "agreement"). The parties to this agreement are ("you" or "subscriber") and the owner of Babestation.co.uk (the "Company"). Subject to terms and conditions set forth in this agreement, the Company agrees to provide you all privileges of subscription to this site available to a subscriber in good standing. this agreement is subject to change by the Company at any time, and changes are effective upon notice to the subscriber by e-mail, posting at or via hyperlink to this site, or by mail ."

Just had a quick look at the BS websites and it does look to be a copy and pasted job from the BS website terms and conditions section, so maybe that's what Shebang have done, but saying that sometimes the websites are run by a different company to the company that is actually broadcasting the material, just like some tv babe channel operate on channels belonging to another company, so that's a possibility as well . Ive mentioned this in the Shebang section and Shebang were checking it out earlier, so maybe they will explain it .

The company that owns Shebang is Digital One Media LTD, Leather Lane London EC1N7TE , but i'm not sure if that company operates the web site . Amanda Rendall is a Director of Digital one Media by the way .

I've just heard a radio interview with the head of ATVOD who confirmed that this new measure will only apply to foreign sites, as ATVOD is already able to regulate UK sites. However, a different question seems much more interesting to me, which is why ATVOD are making such decisions anyway. Surely such a far reaching measure like this should be discussed in and decided by parliament, not some unelected body like ATVOD?

(12-10-2013 14:29 )admiral decker Wrote:  I've just heard a radio interview with the head of ATVOD who confirmed that this new measure will only apply to foreign sites, as ATVOD is already able to regulate UK sites. However, a different question seems much more interesting to me, which is why ATVOD are making such decisions anyway. Surely such a far reaching measure like this should be discussed in and decided by parliament, not some unelected body like ATVOD?

Interesting point and it would be edifying to see a whole bunch of bodies being dragged through the courts for restraint of trade.

ISPs are being compelled at gunpoint to introduce default porn filters, but its not law, Parliament has not had a say, so everyone assumes that means the ISPs and customers cannot sue for breach of Human Rights (Free Speech), but it IS de facto regulation.

Actually I doubt the Americans would stand for this - censorship without a single enabling law would smack too much of arbitrary exercise of unregulated executive power.

Anyway - there IS a case to answer, and sooner or later an ISP will break ranks or a newcomer will muscle in. Its not fantasy (unlike babechannels challenging Ofcom), when the internet was in its infancy there were ISPs that blocks all sites not on a whitelist, and others that blocked nothing.

Just because something is not law does not mean it cannot be challenged in the European Court. Actually it makes it simpler - the lowest UK Court will throw the case out, there will be no UK grounds for appeal, meaning all UK avenues will have been exhausted. One simple Crown Court case then straight to Europe.

(12-10-2013 14:29 )admiral decker Wrote:  I've just heard a radio interview with the head of ATVOD who confirmed that this new measure will only apply to foreign sites, as ATVOD is already able to regulate UK sites. However, a different question seems much more interesting to me, which is why ATVOD are making such decisions anyway. Surely such a far reaching measure like this should be discussed in and decided by parliament, not some unelected body like ATVOD?

because by doing something like this then least they are showing to the goverment that the providers are trying to be proactive rather than waiting for the goverment to do something because that will be even more draconian

its like the case in point with the papers if all papers had agreed on this thing they had put forward there would be no need for the goverment to step in with an even harder solution

because when goverment steps in usally have pressure groups holding a gun to there heads. you know the groups with small memberships and loud voices who somehow the political parties listen to in the hope of cheap votes

David Cameron is turning your country into a joke.... it is not his choice if other adults want to view adult material, will he not be voted out before he has time to make any more of his shit ideas come to life?

(14-10-2013 23:40 )Fernandez Esperenda Wrote:  David Cameron is turning your country into a joke.... it is not his choice if other adults want to view adult material, will he not be voted out before he has time to make any more of his shit ideas come to life?

Quite right. In a democracy law should not be based on the personal whim of one person, however powerful. This isnt Russia.

Imagine if Tony Blair had tried to ban condoms. Or Gordon Brown regulated The Sun out of existence. Or John Major forced TV companies to drop football in favour of cricket.

Streaming Porn in Ultra High Def?
Stuff.tv

Quote:Huccio claims to be the first adult content company to offer 4K UHD downloads of blood pressure-raising movies.

Only one issue remains: 4K UHD porn might be too real for viewers' liking. When it was first presented in 1080p high definition, every pore, pimple and mole was so detailed, some 'users' found it a little offputting.

Huccio, however, is not fazed by this. In an e-mail interview to Gizmodo, Toni Tsai, one of the creators of Huccio, said more care will be taken during the shooting and post-processing of the content. Though more details can be seen, he reckons the saucy content will look great with the right post-production treatment.

Although the site has been officially launched, full subscription services kick off on 1st December. Once the service starts, subscribers can expect new weekly videos.